Faculty Senate Minutes Friday - October 6, 2020

4:00pm - 6:00pm Zoom Virtual Meeting


Joel Hockensmith (chair), Hanadi Al-Samman, Rasheed Balogun, Ellen Bassett, Alan Beckenstein, Aniko Bodroghkozy, Aaron Bloomfield, Maite Brandt-Pearce, Brandon Butler, Linda Duska11, James Fitz-Gerald, Brie Gertler, Peter Hallowell, Alena Herklotz, Bob Hirosky, Tish Jennings, Susan Kirk, Kathryn Laughon, Kevin Lehmann2, Liz Magill, Carol Manning, Peter Norton, Rob Patterson, Andrew Pennock, Jim Savage, Sarah Ware, John Unsworth

1. Kristina (providing closed captioning)
2. Anne Kellams
3. Mike Citro
4. Raghda Labban

Administrative support: Ashley Ayers

Meeting Agenda

  1. Convene and Call to Order - Chair Hockensmith
    1.5 hrs for EXCO meeting with subsequent 30 min for Provost = 2 hrs total.
  2. Approve minutes
    1. EXCO 09/04/2020
  3. Faculty Presentation on CR/NC option for Fall 2020 (unfinished business from 09/18) – Faculty Senator Andrew Pennock
  4. Committee Reports
    1. Nominating Committee – Chair Hockensmith
      1. Impanel by Oct 15th.
      2. Solicited Nominations from FS on Sept. 23rd.
      3. 5 Members:
      1. Ellen Bassett, Prof., School of Architecture – Nominating Cmte Chair
      2. Susan Kirk, Assoc. Prof., School of Medicine
      3. James Savage, Prof., Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy
      4. Jeri Seidman, Assoc. Prof., McIntire School of Commerce
      5. Benjamin Moses, Asst. Prof., School of Medicine
    2. Academic Affairs – Cmte Chair Bloomfield
    3. DEI – Cmte Chair Jennings
      1. Legacy Admissions Resolution
    4. Faculty Grievance – Cmte Chair Al-Samman OR Manning
    5. FRRRW – Cmte Chair Beckenstein OR Modesitt
    6. Finance – Cmte Chair Hallowell
    7. Policy – Cmte Chair Norton
    8. Consensual Relationship Policy – Vice Provost Brandt-Pearce, Faculty Affairs
    9. RTS – Cmte Chair Hirosky OR Lehmann
    10. Ad hoc committee on Bylaws (BOV) – Cmte Chair Ware
  5. BOV Bylaw proposal – Mr. Norton, EXCO member
  6. Report from University Library
    1. Dean of Libraries, John Unsworth
    2. Mr. Brandon Butler, Director, Information Policy
  7. Motion to renew the library charge – Chair Hockensmitha.
    1. On Nov. 22, 2019, The University of Virginia Faculty Senate reconstituted the “Senate Task Force on Scholarly Publications and Author’s Rights” as an ad hoc committee.
    2. The committee was “sunsetted” on May 30th, 2020 without completing its task.
  8. Faculty Conflict of Interest Guidelines – Chair Hockensmith
  9. Agenda for Oct. 20th Faculty Senate Meeting
  10. Other business
  11. 5:30-6:00
    1. Provost Liz Magill
    2. Brie Gertler, Prof. of Philosophy
  12. 6 pm – Adjourn

Meeting Notes:
Quorum met; Joel Hockensmith called the meeting to order, shared a slide about “General Consent,” and asked if there were questions.

Susan Kirk: will items that are for consideration using “General Consent” be on the agenda? Joel said yes, going forward.

Meeting guidelines posted on screen

  • Aniko Bodroghkozy: a 24 hour turnaround might not allow enough time to familiarize ourselves with the content.
  • Joel: asked what the timing should be, if not 24 hours?
  • Robert Patterson: 48 hours.
  • Hanadi Al-Samman: yes, 48 hours or 72 hours is better because people have review time when traveling and with volume of email.
  • Joel Hockensmith: are those days business days or any days of the week? Are we voting during weekends? Joel noted that he has been trying to keep EXCO business out of the weekends.
  • James Savage: what does Robert’s Rules say about voting?
  • Aniko Bodroghkozy: 72 hours with three reminders.
  • Tish Jennings: we are trying to be to nimble and move quickly. 48 hours max.
  • Susan Kirk: 48-72 hours. She is leaning toward 72 hours. If it is standardized and published ahead of time, that helps. Have consistency each time.
  • Joel Hockensmith: there is a two-week window between EXCO and full Fac Senate meetings, we must wrap up decisions and get details to FS.
  • Kevin Lehmann: earlier notes, faster.
  • Joel Hockensmith: 48 hours for an amendment; 72 hours for the final decision.

Approve Minutes from last EXCO meeting.
Any amendments or changes? No one responded. Minutes approved by General Consent at 4:12pm

Andy Pennock: credit/no credit option for fall 2020.
[motion background was shared on screen]

  • Undergraduates have a petition to go to credit/no credit. Students would have to opt out to receive grades.
  • Student mental health care concerns – sympathetic to the students. Challenges/issues of learning at home. This semester, students are still impacted by these issues.
  • He doesn’t think their motion is the best way to go about it. Recommends applicationbased credit/no credit option. All in: either all classes are credit/no credit or none of the classes. Application based system is the right way to go.
  • Joel Hockensmith: Andy can you read the proposal? It will be entered in as a motion.
    [Andy read the proposal to the webinar audience.]
  • Ellen Bassett seconded the proposal.
  • Joel Hockensmith: faculty feedback is that faculty don’t want to move all the students in the credit/no credit option; Provost office perspective, a policy could be instituted, because it is early enough in the semester.
  • Ellen Bassett: why is the timing the last day of exam?
  • Andy Pennock: something major could happen at any time, even on last day of exams.
  • Susan Kirk: does the word “hardship” need to be included? Does that create a barrier? Might be difficult for students to ask for this option.
  • Andy Pennock: great suggestion.
  • Kevin Lehmann: proposal doesn’t specifically say “all in or all out” Strong argument that different classes have different demands. A student might have an issue meeting course work in one class but is fine in another course. Would the dean of students have enough knowledge about each class to make this judgement? Students have always had personal challenges and faculty work directly with them to accommodate them - extend that situation. Why should the dean of students be the deciding factor? Impact of students getting into competitive majors, graduate school, fellowships. Have not been addressed yet, so no blanket policy change should be implemented until those issues have been addressed. This proposal is not a good idea.
  • Joel Hockensmith: Andy doesn’t have to defend proposal; just discussion now.
  • Rob Patterson: do you mean the dean of student in each of the units/schools, the unitspecific dean? Does every unit have a dean of students? McIntire does. Batten does. But do all the other schools? Provost Office – didn’t seem in favor of this policy. Now, are they saying that with Andy’s proposal, this can move forward? Where do the Deans sit, for this proposal?
  • Joel: Provost has a committee discussing this issue and it will make a decision before the next full FS meeting. She has a second outreach initiative where she’s working with each dean and they’re discussing it at that level. She didn’t want to cut out the FS and its voice. She wants FS to say it in a timely manner. Shared governance: willing to listen and talk about it. This proposal was a middle ground.
  • Andy Pennock: one thing he heard Provost say is that we didn’t design courses to be pass/fail. You’d need to say you’ve been impacted by COVID in a real way, to be able to apply for pass/fail.
  • Rob Patterson: where would the students go if a school doesn’t have a dean of students?
  • Ellen Bassett: there are associate deans of students. Provost can clarify if each school has a person in this role.
  • Rob and Andy: the “dean of students” language came from Andy
  • Alan Beckenstein: doesn’t like idea that after a student takes an exam, they decide they didn’t do well and applies for pass/fail. At Darden, students must make decision before final exams.
  • Kathryn Laughon: her instinct is to support the students. Concerned that this policy doesn’t meet their concerns. What their transcript would look like in the future might embed inequality, down the road for them. In the spring, it was a response to a crisis. Now, will it not work in their favor? Is there a way to ask faculty to handle the issue specific to each student? Work with each student.
  • Aaron Bloomfield: perception that if someone got credit/no credit, they were trying to hide something – would that stigma be attached to this, if on an application basis? We should make a decision – other peer institutions are offering some version of pass/fail option.
  • Jim Savage: does the student has to have COVID19 to drop out of courses or change course grade?
  • Andy Pennock: no, a student doesn’t have to have the virus. Could leave this decision to dean of students on a case by case basis. Meant to be broad but there is accountability.
  • Jim Savage: is this a permanent policy?
  • Andy: the policy is only for fall of 2020
  • Kathryn Laughon: objects that they have to perform their tragedy to get the pass/fail option.
  • Bob Hirosky: some students may have been gaming the system. We’ve seen a variety of cases where students have made a mistake by choosing credit/no credit. Should have chosen graded option. Encourage students who’ve declared a major to seek input from their majors advisor, give them guidance.
  • Rob Patterson: this policy has long and short-term implications for students. They are hyper-aware of their grades. Not sure how many of his students would use the application. Might be a stigma.
  • Joel Hockensmith: anyone wants to make an amendment?
  • Jim Fitz-Gerald: combined credit/no credit optional. Gave ability to help them assess. 4th year students who had a job secured were more likely to take no-credit. Younger students took the grade (3rd years).
  • Joel: take this to a vote: to move to full Faculty Senate next meeting. If it fails, it will not go to FS meeting.
  • Andy Pennock: amendments to specific language.
  • Joel Hockensmith: someone can move to amend the language.
  • Susan Kirk: moved amend to remove the word hardship. Tish Jennings seconded the motion. No discussion. Joel: two votes; one is a 48 hour vote to delete the the word “hardship”. Following that, 72 hours to vote on original proposal of amended proposal. Joel: General Consent to remove the word “hardship” – amendment stand as suggested. Any objections? Now, we vote for the amended motion, for 72 hours, starting tomorrow.

Committee reports: Joel Hockensmith:

  • Nominating Committee established a year and a half ago. Queried 6 senators: five agreed (Bassett, Kirk, Savage, Seidman, Moses). Aaron moves that we except panel. Tish seconds. Any discussion?
  • Hanadi: school of arts and sciences are not represented.
  • James Savage is in arts and sciences
  • Approved by General Consent; panel stands and starts its business.

Academic Affairs: Aaron Bloomfield
Two graduate certificates approved; only require notification to SCHEV; streamlining procedure.

  1. Cyber Physical Systems – pass by General Consent. No comments. Approved by General Consent.
  2. Business Digital Transformation certificate – no questions or objections. Chair declared by General Consent that it is approved.

Diversity Equity: Tish Jennings

  • Tish read the resolution to webinar audience.
  • Aaron Bloomfield: legacy admissions. How would this happen in practice? Banned from considering that? Not allowed to see that information?
  • Tish Jennings: in the above paragraph, addressed. Change to application.
  • James Savage: UCalifornia. Crisis, parents gave money.
  • Tish Jennings: that text is not part of the motion.
  • Hanadi Al-Samman: legacy admission. Almost everyone qualifies for it. If everyone is legacy, it’s not taken into consideration. Why do we have to state that?
  • Tish Jennings: I don’t believe that’s true.
  • James Savage: does the application form has a place to indicate “legacy”?
  • Tish Jennings: not sure. Good question.
  • James Savage: not sure how a student becomes legacy.
  • Rob: did the committee do outreach with the experts on the issue – admissions office?
  • Tish Jennings: no, we didn’t. It was brought forward by one of the members. In group, feeling that legacies are outdated and need to go away.
  • Ellen Bassett: changing the app might be difficult. Where is it, can we opt out?
  • Susan Kirk: a legacy: children who reside with a parent who received a degree at UVA. No first-generation students would ever be legacy students.
  • Hanadi Al-Samman: UVA does not give anything to students of faculty. Matter of equity.
  • Kevin Lehmann: generally supports but should offer admissions office a chance to comment. Ask what impact it would have? Consult those who deal with the issue, first.
  • Joel: comments? This would come to a vote tomorrow. You can recommend that you refer the proposal back to the committee.
  • Kevin Lehmann: made a motion that we send proposal back to the committee to refer to admissions office.
  • Tish Jennings: not sure it’s relevant to get admissions committee input.
  • Ellen Bassett: submit specific questions. This is a big issue relative to development. The answer will not be unbiased. Specific questions: implementability, ramifications. Not, “do you like the proposal?”
  • Aniko Bodroghkozy: not sure anything they tell us is anything we don’t know. Specific questions could be useful but not sure what useful information we could get about the issue.
  • Joel Hockensmith: we don’t know how the query is made on the application and whether that query could be removed so that the admissions committee won’t know that information. Maybe they don’t see the information.
  • Kevin Lehmann: we are asking them what the impact on the university. How is it weighted? Have they done studies about how applications have been evaluation/ranked with and without knowledge of legacy? Why is it on there? How are legacies defined?
  • Jim Savage: what are the trend lines? Number of legacy people coming into UVA. What is the pattern, over time?
  • Joel Hockensmith: approve motion to refer back to committee by General Consent. Any objections?
  • Tish Jennings objected. That means it has to go to vote.
  • Joel Hockensmith: going to double check the rules to see how to deal with this.

Faculty Grievance: Hanadi Al-Samman

  • Hanadi Al-Samman: we had two successful cases. Both committees did good work. Faculty has thanked them for their work, impressed with the work of the committee.

Faculty Recruitment/Retention/Retirement/Welfare Committee:

  • Alan Beckenstein: want to schedule listening posts for those elsewhere, members of provost’s staff, others relevant (HR). Poll of issues by committee members. Considered that maybe they weren’t hearing from everyone, so they’d host listening meetings.

Finance: Peter Hallowell

  • Nothing to report.

Policy: Peter Norton

  • Peter Norton: reviewing policies. Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, Maite, wants to make sure UVA has a university-wide policy on consensual relationships (between faculty and students). Draft policy received end of August. Maite wants a larger sample of faculty comments.
  • Propose that members take a look at the consensual relationship policy and provide Peter any comments and he will send those comments to Maite. He’ll also collect them from all Faculty Senators. Review the document and send comments. Specific recommendations on specific fixes.
  • Maite Brandt-Pearce: thanks, Peter for your diligence in seeking comments on the policy. Goals: makes sense to use this existing body to give her feedback on new faculty policy. Specific comments about edits you’d like considered. Helpful to tell her what you like about the policy. She wants to work with FS and have broad endorsement of draft, once she goes to associate deans. Better to put this in the heads of the faculty earlier. Most helpful to get substantive feedback. Needs a richer idea of what the FS as a body thinks.
  • Joel Hockensmith: how can we give Maite a consensus or broad endorsement of policy so she can go to deans and report that a certain percentage of the faculty agrees. How do we proceed, going forward? For consensual relationship policy, send Peter Norton your comments.
  • Peter Norton: appreciation for getting the faculty involved early. Committee wants to be helpful to provost office but it stands for the faculty interest. Faculty need a greater voice. Faculty are skeptical that comments are impactful. Not getting result we’d like to see. Want to see that comments from faculty are making a difference.

Research, Teaching, Scholarship

  • Bob Hirosky: committee has met twice so far, review of historical issues before committee and trying to chart a course going forward in the semester.
  • Kevin summarized the view of committee on grading options, earlier.
  • How is OSP functioning? Lack of clarity on understanding of requirements and duties at each level of university. How do we smooth out process of pre- and post-award?
  • Committee is going to continue the discussion. Faculty are unhappy on how post-awards processed on OSP. Will have more to report.

Ad hoc committees.

  • Sarah Ware: what we gathered from discussion and vote: most people wanted one person sent to BOV. Simplified the bylaw to that everyone could agree on. Calls for one name to be sent to BOV and for that person to have majority of votes. [Sarah read the motion]
  • Jim Savage: “may” provide. “shall” Move to change the word “may” stricken “shall” replace it. Aaron Bloomfield seconded the motion.
  • Kevin Lehmann: remove “each senator should vote for one candidate” Ranked choice voting.
  • Sarah Ware: committee discussed rank-choice voting. Members were open to the process but didn’t have expertise to describe it in the bylaws.
  • Kevin Lehmann: need to specify a specific rank-choice. Exclude sentence “one vote” and it would be not specified. Then the bylaws won’t have it specified.
  • Joel Hockensmith: approve Savage amendment by General Consent. No discussion.
  • Joel put some comments up on the screen for reasons people didn’t vote or abstained.
  • Kevin Lehmann: made a motion to strike the sentence that says “each senator will vote for one candidate” Peter Norton seconded. Any discussion? Approved by General Consent. No objection.
  • Ellen Bassett: concerned about the language. The way the vote is set up will determine the way the voting happens.
  • Peter Norton: election is prescribed. Robert’s rules followed. Majority of votes cast. You can have ranked order voting.
  • Susan Kirk: opportunity to call out specific kind of voting.
  • Peter Norton: still one vote, even if top three. Only one will be counted in the end. Bylaw could say “ranked choice voting”.
  • Kevin Lehmann: phrase “ranked choice” voting has some ambiguity. Prefer not to put in that language now. Want to reference a specific system that solves ambiguity.
  • Joel: this amendment will go to a vote tomorrow. Vote to advance to FS.

John Unsworth: August 5, research libraries convened. William and Mary invited to participate. ELSIVIR. 30% discount in spending from 10 million to 7 million. Negotiations. Spend less and have other methods for faculty to get at journals and articles. Happy to come back.

  • Joel: wants EXCO to renew task force on authors’ rights. To help John Unsworth and the library. Motion to renew? Tish Jennings moves to renew. Kevin Lehmann moves to second. No discussion. Passed by General Consent. Joel will work on getting the committee up and running.

Liz Magill: two topics.

  • Brie Gertler has been working on the spring calendar. J-term – January 4-15. Work group including physicians, facilities, student affairs, etc. 66 instructional days in the fall. Looking at something similar for the spring – would begin two weeks late and would lose 5 instructional days. Two-week break between J-term and spring term. Testing students for COVID before they come back to Grounds.
  • Semester would begin Feb. 2, and end May 5. No spring break but two single days off in the middle of the week probably. Discourage travel.
  • Nature of final assessments. Dorms should be open for students who need to stay here for exams. Should we encourage all other students to go home. Full senate meeting: talk about exams.
  • Ongoing conversations about credit/no credit that students proposed – a large portion want mandatory credit/no credit. OR: decision after you know your grade. Or extending the option longer.
  • Brie Gertler: essentially the schedule will be what we did in the fall. In the fall, we started teaching on time, but in spring, we start later because of flu season.
  • Joel Hockensmith: EXCO had an extensive conversation about petitioning their deans to go credit/no credit. He will forward proposal to Liz later.
  • Jim Savage: New York Times, number of students with the virus. UVA has high number of cases.
  • Liz Magill: I have to look at the story, first. How are they defining a case? I observe the trackers of various schools.
  • Joel Hockensmith: they were surveying students and not looking at the COVID trackers. Jim, could you forward the article to her?
  • Liz Magill: UVA spokesperson is actively communicating with the NYT with these numbers. There are error problems. Schools are recording all the testing they are doing. If a student goes outside the school, the number won’t be reported in the school’s numbers. Schools doing saliva testing have higher numbers. She’ll look at it and talk to Brian.
  • Jim: private schools seem lower cases.

Joel Hockensmith: we are out of time. Bylaw proposal. If we were in regular meeting, one proposal at a time. Will vote on first proposal tomorrow. Peter: post his bylaw to be voted on at the same time.

Peter Norton: there is a difference between the two bylaws. Fitting if they got to pick which one to forward to the senate – they’re both good. Have EXCO choose which one to move forward.

Joel Hockensmith: EXCO has Peter’s motion. Look at them both.

Peter Norton: makes a difference to look at them both at once.

Joel Hockensmith: general consensus to post them both and say you can only vote on one. Any objections? No objections.

Meeting adjourned at 6:07pm.